|
Author
|
|
Topic: Spraying in the United Kingdom. | Topic page views:
|
|
j briggs
Senior Member
United Kingdom
36 posts, Jun 2002
|
posted 06-28-2002 07:37 PM
   
Dear forum members,
The chemical spraying of the U.K. continues unabated almost every day and having spoken to many friends and colleagues living in different parts of the U.K. the coverage is almost 100%. I served in the R.A.F. so I know the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail and have spent countless time and energy explaining to a great number of U.K. residents what is going on above their heads. Most of the U.K. population still seem totally oblivious to what is going on above their heads. I live in a rural area of the U.K. that is supposedly not under any major air corridor yet most days it seems busier than Heathrow airport!! I have decided to document the happenings over Lancashire on my website, please feel free to have a look what's going on in the good old U.K. Check it out on http://biochem.yoll.net John Briggs. 
|
Chem11
megasprayer news
The Homeland
1366 posts, Apr 2001
|
posted 06-28-2002 08:30 PM
I have yet to see any evidence that commercial aircraft are involved in aerosol spraying. The mechanic's and manager's 'statements' are admitted hoaxs, foisted upon the chemtrail community by a 'debunker' who went by the log-in SprayplanePilot. It was within the context of this hoax, that the term 'Project Clovercleaf'(desginating the use of commercial airliners) first came into 'use'.The ham radio 'recording' is undoubedtly part and parcel of this same hoax, as well.
|
j briggs
Senior Member
United Kingdom
36 posts, Jun 2002
|
posted 06-29-2002 04:52 AM
Hello Chem11,
I understand that hoaxes etc are part and parcel of the disinformation brigade but how do you explain the amount of aircraft spraying and coverage? They are definately not all military and why would a debunker admit to his/her misdeeds?
|
IZAKOVIC
Senior Member
Rijeka, Croatia (Europe)
128 posts, Jan 2001
|
posted 06-29-2002 08:58 AM
Because of the chemtrails spraying system requirements (design, size, mass, chemtrail compounds mass&volume), there is no way that any commercial aircraft, that performs its usual task i.e. flying passengers or cargo, can be used in such operation. Even proposed jet fuel additives, to perform in observed way, would take up a significant mass of the airplane fuel capacity. All aircraft, including usual C130 tankers and such, must be fitted with dedicated equipment to be capable of spraying chemtrails (dry powder).
Taken in to the account the magnitude and length of this operation (3 years), it is certain that no other organization except the US Air Force is capable of such a 24/7/365 war/ logistic effort.Best regards. IZAKOVIC http://www.deepspace4.com
|
Chem11
megasprayer news
The Homeland
1366 posts, Apr 2001
|
posted 06-29-2002 11:13 PM
Mr. Briggs, Ballpark estimates for the airfleet required to pull of what we are observing in the US range between 100-150 dedicated aircraft; hardly an enormous sum. As for the second part of your question, I'm not a psychologist so I can't offer an informed opinion. I can tell you that I read the admission with my own eyes. I can tell you that Thermit also is aware of this deception and has documented it under the 'disinformation' section. I suppose there are certain personality types who simply enjoy engaging in deception and hoaxery. Perhaps SP craved congratulations and approval form his peers. If so, he was not disapointed; the 'administrator' of the 'hoax board' (as it has been known ever since this incident, in all it's incarnations) proclamimed 'drinks for everyone!' after this deception was admitted to. Sadly, I still see this Operation Clovercleaf hoaxery quoted as gospel truth on dozens of websites. quote:
They are definately not all military
I have yet to see anyone, anywhere post a photograph or video of a jetliner with identifiable commercial markings engaging in 'chemtrail activity'. Yet I've seen hundreds of photos depicting unmarked white tankers. Four years this has been going on and not one shred of evidence that commercial aircraft are involved. If you have some sort of photographic or video evidence to strengthern the claim that they are 'definately' not all military, I would be very interested in seeing it.
|
Dan Rockwell
Hoka hey! - heyokas!
Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001
|
posted 06-30-2002 12:27 AM
I can agree with J Briggs to a point. When I look at the logistics of the operation, I keep looking back to previous operations conducted jointly by certain government agencies such as Air America. quote:
... Air America, an airline secretly owned by the CIA, was a vital component in the agency's operations in Laos. By the summer of 1970, the airline had some two dozen twin-engine transports, another two dozen short-take off-and-landing (STOL) aircraft, and 30 helicopters dedicated to operations in Laos. There were more than 300 pilots, copilots, flight mechanics, and airfreight specialists flying out of Laos and Thailand. During 1970, Air America airdropped or landed 46 million pounds of food stuffs --mainly rice--in Laos. Helicopter flight time reached more than 4000 hours a month in the same year...
http://www.air-america.org/About/History.htm Up until a few 1989, the CIA was flying several white C5-A's out of a restricted airfield in New York State. Now a C5-A is a pretty big cargo jet so could it be possible that they could be converted into spray planes? The one unusual thing that I noticed about the specifications of the C5-A is that there is no record of how many of these jets are currently operational. Also, a few months ago, I was watching chem-jets flying either SW or NE for over an hour with the majority of them traveling NE. It was like a damn parade. All of them were white and nearly identical. And before that, I saw 2 smaller jets that looked like modified fire tankers flying at almost the same altitude, same speed, in the same direction with one traveling slightly to the left and behind the other. They were both white and had orange markings on their tails. The only difference between the two was that one had 4 wing mounted engines and the other had 2.
|
100777.com
New Member
Helsinki
16 posts, May 2002
|
posted 06-30-2002 04:39 AM
I listened to the soundclip on Rogers site: http://biochem.yoll.net/Evidence.html very interesting... but as usual you canīt say where it originates from...
Peace,
100777.com
|
Dan Rockwell
Hoka hey! - heyokas!
Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001
|
posted 06-30-2002 03:35 PM
C5 GALAXY
C-14A Starlifter
| |
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
